You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line. But within the same country you could still have private businesses. And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).
Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.
The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it. It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.
You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line.
no socialist scholar ever said socialism is when the government gives people healthcare, this just happens to be something socialists want, but it in and of itself is not socialism, and not everything socialists want is socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, nothing else.
And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).
these also are examples that have nothing to do with anything any socialist philosopher ever said. You have listened to capitalist propaganda that says socialism is all these things, try listening to marx or bakunin or kropotkin or any other major socialist thinker as to the definition of socialism.
Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.
also still capitalist.
The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it.
this is a strawman because you don’t even know what leftists believe, you have obviously not read the works of many if you don’t even know the definition of socialism… but for some reason you boldly assume you do because you read it on the news or perhaps got this information from a middleschool teacher.
It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.
i can see how that would be if your strawman were true.
If you wish to debunk all of my claims name any major socialist thinker who agrees with your definition. Not social democrat, socialist.
But if the majority of the productive forces are primarily privately owned it is a capitalist system. Capitalist and socialist as adjectives are separate from ‘Capitalism’ as an economic system. What you are describing is a capitalist system with socialist elements and sounds like what most developed nations have today.
I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done, any society will require work and civic diligence until we could build the technology to be in as some call it ‘Fully-automated luxury gay space communism’ or FALGSC.
I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done
It’s what Marxism is about isn’t it? Leftism is heavily influenced by Marxism, you hear leftists often say “late stage capitalism” without thinking how stupid the implications of that phrase are. Constant references to Star Trek abound, without realizing that show is actually agnostic on economics, they use an ideal system, but the writers don’t know what that would be. “Post-scarcity economy” is another phrase that’s used often.
Overall this indicates leftists don’t actually know anything about economics, they’re just unhappy with how things are going and have no idea how to fix it. Not significantly different than the MAGA movement, just putting faith into narratives that feel right to them.
In what way is that what Marxism is about? And anyway there have been a lot of developments in socialist theory since Marx. What implications of the phrase “late-stage capitalism” are you referring to?
What does it mean for socialism and capitalism to co-exist in one system?
You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line. But within the same country you could still have private businesses. And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).
Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.
The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it. It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.
no socialist scholar ever said socialism is when the government gives people healthcare, this just happens to be something socialists want, but it in and of itself is not socialism, and not everything socialists want is socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, nothing else.
these also are examples that have nothing to do with anything any socialist philosopher ever said. You have listened to capitalist propaganda that says socialism is all these things, try listening to marx or bakunin or kropotkin or any other major socialist thinker as to the definition of socialism.
also still capitalist.
this is a strawman because you don’t even know what leftists believe, you have obviously not read the works of many if you don’t even know the definition of socialism… but for some reason you boldly assume you do because you read it on the news or perhaps got this information from a middleschool teacher.
i can see how that would be if your strawman were true.
If you wish to debunk all of my claims name any major socialist thinker who agrees with your definition. Not social democrat, socialist.
But if the majority of the productive forces are primarily privately owned it is a capitalist system. Capitalist and socialist as adjectives are separate from ‘Capitalism’ as an economic system. What you are describing is a capitalist system with socialist elements and sounds like what most developed nations have today.
I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done, any society will require work and civic diligence until we could build the technology to be in as some call it ‘Fully-automated luxury gay space communism’ or FALGSC.
It’s what Marxism is about isn’t it? Leftism is heavily influenced by Marxism, you hear leftists often say “late stage capitalism” without thinking how stupid the implications of that phrase are. Constant references to Star Trek abound, without realizing that show is actually agnostic on economics, they use an ideal system, but the writers don’t know what that would be. “Post-scarcity economy” is another phrase that’s used often.
Overall this indicates leftists don’t actually know anything about economics, they’re just unhappy with how things are going and have no idea how to fix it. Not significantly different than the MAGA movement, just putting faith into narratives that feel right to them.
In what way is that what Marxism is about? And anyway there have been a lot of developments in socialist theory since Marx. What implications of the phrase “late-stage capitalism” are you referring to?
Removed by mod